Visitor Counter

Visitors Since Blog Created in March 2010

Click Below to:

Add Blog to Favorites

Coyotes-Wolves-Cougars.blogspot.com

Grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, coyotes, cougars/ mountain lions,bobcats, wolverines, lynx, foxes, fishers and martens are the suite of carnivores that originally inhabited North America after the Pleistocene extinctions.
This site invites research, commentary, point/counterpoint on that suite of native animals (predator and prey) that inhabited The Americas circa 1500-at the initial point of European exploration and subsequent colonization.
Landscape ecology, journal accounts of explorers and frontiersmen, genetic evaluations of museum animals, peer reviewed 20th and 21st century research on various aspects of our "Wild America" as well as subjective commentary from expert and layman alike. All of the above being revealed and discussed with the underlying goal of one day seeing our Continent rewilded.....Where big enough swaths of open space exist with connective corridors to other large forest, meadow, mountain, valley, prairie, desert and chaparral wildlands.....Thereby enabling all of our historic fauna, including man, to live in a sustainable and healthy environment. - Blogger Rick

Collaboration leads

to dead wolves

The shooting of the Profanity Pack last year and now a kill order for the Smackout Pack in Northeast Washington clearly demonstrated the failure of the current strategy of many conservation groups who are involved in wolf recovery efforts.

In this case, a number of organizations, including Wolf Haven International, Conservation Northwest, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Humane Society had joined the Wolf Advisory Group or WAG, a collaborative group that worked with the state of Washington as well as other “stake holders” (read ranchers) to produce a wolf recovery strategy.

The plan, among other components, calls for the lethal removal of depredating wolves. This applies to both public and private lands. Therein lies the rub. Who should have priority on public lands? Public wildlife or private livestock?

I am sure that these organizations have the best intentions—they want to see wolves thrive—however, they need to take a step back and consider whether their current strategy ultimately gains acceptance for wolves and other wildlife or merely becomes a “green washing” of actions that maintain the status quo and ultimately never really improves conditions for wolves and other wildlife.

When the Profanity Pack killed some cattle on a public lands grazing allotment, these organizations supported the killing of the pack, despite the fact that the rancher involved had placed his cattle on an allotment with a known wolf pack. He even placed salt blocks within a few hundred yards of a wolf den and rendezvous site. In essence, the Profanity Pack was set up to be killed by the agencies managing the land and wolves. But as members of the WAG, these organizations did not object to the killing which they called termed “regrettable” and other adjectives, but which they ultimately supported.

As members of the WAG they were silenced from voicing outrage, and even more importantly, condemning the entire situation where private livestock are given priority on public lands. And in this case, where the rancher and public agencies like the Forest Service did not take actions to avoid the conflict.

What could have been done differently? Well for one, the Forest Service, the agency managing these lands could have closed the allotment temporarily to grazing to preclude interactions between wolves and livestock. Better yet it could have removed the cattle entirely. But without a united voice from wolf advocates, the agency allowed this tragic and almost inevitable conflict to occur.

This gets to the heart of the issue. Which animals should have priority on public lands? The public’s wildlife or domestic livestock being grazed as a private use of public resources for private profit?

The conservation groups that are part of the WAG cannot change the paradigm. The reason is simple. Collaborations like the WAG start with certain assumptions—that domestic livestock has a priority on public lands—and if you don’t agree with that starting premise, you are not welcome on the collaboration.

It is no different than timber collaborations where the starting assumption is that our forests are “unhealthy” and “need” to be “managed” (read logged) to be “fixed”. If you disagree with that starting assumption, there is no welcome for you in forest collaborations.

This gets to the issue of strategy. As long as the assumption is that private livestock has priority on public lands, nothing will change. Wolves will continue to be shot unnecessarily.

But it goes further than whether wolves are shot. Domestic livestock are consuming the same forage as native wildlife like elk. On many grazing allotments, the bulk of all available forage is allotted to domestic livestock, thereby reducing the carrying capacity for wild ungulates (like elk) which are prey for predators like wolves.

In addition, there are a number of studies that demonstrate that once you move domestic cattle on to an allotment, the native wildlife like elk abandons the area. This means wolves must travel farther to find food, exposing them to more potentially greater mortality from hunters, car accidents, and so on.

You won’t hear any of these conservation groups articulating these “costs” to native wildlife because one of the consequences of joining collaboration is that your voice is muted. You remain silent to “get along.”

The groups joining the Washington WAG defend their participation by saying ranching on public lands is not going away, so the best way to influence wolf policy is to participate in these collaborative efforts.

The problem is that this legitimizes the idea that ranching and livestock have a priority on public lands. Keep in mind that grazing on public lands is a privilege. It is not a “right” despite the fact that the livestock industry tries to obscure the truth by referring to “grazing rights”.

If we are ever going to change the situation for wolves and other predators, not to mention other wildlife from elk to bison, we need to challenge the starting assumptions that livestock have a “right” to graze on our public lands.

Imagine for a minute what the Civil Rights movement would have accomplished if its leaders had joined a collaborative with the KKK and folks who were intent on maintaining the status quo in the South. Under such a paradigm nothing much would change. Sure they could have made the same rationale that today’s conservation groups make when they argue that public lands livestock grazing is not going away—and I’m sure many people involved in the Civil Rights movement assumed that segregation would never end either.

But some brave souls did not accept the starting assumptions. They refused to give up their seats at the front of the bus or at lunch counters. They demanded that all citizens had a right to vote without polling taxes and other measures designed to disenfranchise black voters.

The failure of conservation organizations to avoid questioning the presumed “right” of livestock operations to exploit the public’s land means we will never really change the circumstances under which predators live.

While any organizations that continue to support public lands grazing might defend their decision by suggesting that changing the paradigm is too difficult, I respond by saying as long as they never challenge anything, nothing will change.

I am reminded of David Brower’s admonishment “Polite conservationists leave no mark save the scars upon the Earth that could have been prevented had they stood their ground.”

To learn more about the circumstances surrounding the Profanity Pack demise and advocacy for removal of livestock see Predator Defense’s new documentary at www.predatordefense.org/profanity

AbstractAcorns represent a critical pulsed food source for American Black Bears (Ursus americanus) in the southern Appalachians, and represent their primary hibernation reserves.

We used 20 years of acorn-mast data collected in northwestern South Carolina and examined time-lagged correlations to American Black Bear population growth rates (lambda), human—bear interactions, and bear visitation to bait stations. Our goal was to assess the relative significance of annual indices monitored for state bear management.

Our results indicated that lambda was linked to acorn crop quality, although the correlation varied with oak species: positive with white oaks and negative with red oaks. Human—bear interactions were negatively correlated to mast in the same year. There was no significant relation between bait-station visitation and mast or lambda. Overall our study reflects gaps in current monitoring practices, and we provide ideas towards refining them.

A phenomenon known as Sudden Oak Death
was first reported in 1995 in central coastal
California. Since then, tens of thousands of
tanoaks (Lithocarpus densiflorus), coast
live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), and California black oaks (Quercus kelloggii) have been killed by a newly identified fungus,Phytophthora ramorum. On these hosts, the fungus causes a bleeding canker on the stem. The pathogen also infectsRhododendron spp., huckleberry
(Vaccinium ovatum), bay laurel
(Umbellularia californica), madrone
(Arbutus menziesii), bigleaf maple
(Acer macrophyllum), manzanita
(Arctostaphylos manzanita), and
California buckeye (Aesculus californica).
On these hosts the fungus causes leaf
spot and twig dieback.

As of January 2002, the disease was
known to occur only in California and
southwestern Oregon; however, transporting
infected hosts may spread the disease.
The pathogen has the potential to infect
oaks and other trees and shrubs elsewhere
in the United States. Limited tests show
that many oaks are susceptible to the
fungus, including northern red oak and
pin oak, which are highly susceptible.

On oaks and tanoak, cankers are formed
on the stems. Cankered trees may survive
for one to several years, but once crown
dieback begins, leaves turn from green
to pale yellow to brown within a few weeks.
A black or reddish ooze often bleeds from
the cankers, staining the surface of the
bark and the lichens that grow on it.
eding ooze may be difficult to see if it
has dried or has been washed off by rain,
although remnant dark staining is usually
present.

Necrotic bark tissues surrounded by black
zone lines are usually present under
affected bark. Because these symptoms
can also be caused by other Phytophthora
species, laboratory tests must be done
to confirm pathogen identity.

In the Eastern United States, other
disorders of oaks have similar symptoms.
See the reverse of this sheet for descriptions.
If unusual oak mortality occurs and symptoms
do not match these regional disorders, evaluate
affected trees for Phytophthora ramorum.

In the United States, sudden oak death is
known to occur only along the west coast.
However, the fact that widely traded
rhododendron ornamentals can be infected
with the pathogen and the demonstrated
susceptibility of some important eastern
oaks make introduction to eastern hardwood
forests a significant risk. Early detection will
be important for successful eradication.
Oaks defoliated early in the growing season
by insects or pathogens may appear dead,
but leaves usually reflush later in the season.
Canker rots, slime flux, leaf scorch, root
diseases, freeze damage, herbicide injury,
and other ailments may cause symptoms
similar to those caused by P. ramorum.
Oak wilt, oak decline, and red oak borer
damage are potentially the most confusing.
See the reverse of this sheet for comparisons
with sudden oak death symptoms.

To report infected trees or to receive
additional information, please
contact your State or Federal
forest health specialist. On the
Internet, visit the SOD home page at www.suddenoakdeath.org.
To distinguish this new disease
from diseases with similar appearance, visit http://www.na.fs.fed.us/SOD.

Eastern Oak Disorders That Resemble
Sudden Oak Death

In eastern hardwood forests, sudden
oak death can be confused, in particular,
with oak wilt, oak decline, and red oak
borer damage. Descriptions of these
disorders and comparisons with sudden oak death follow.

Oak Wilt

Oak wilt is an aggressive fungus
disease caused byCeratocystis fagacearum. It is one of the most
serious diseases in the Eastern
United States, killing thousands of
oak trees in forests, woodlots, and
home landscapes. Susceptible hosts
include most oaks in the red oak
group and Texas live oak. Symptoms
include wilting and discoloration of
the foliage, premature leaf drop, and
rapid death of the tree within days
or weeks of the first symptoms.
Trees become infected with oak
wilt in two ways: through connections
between root systems of adjacent
trees, and through insects that carry
the fungus to other trees that have
been wounded.

Similarities: Oak wilt can also kill
trees very quickly, especially if
infection begins through root grafts.
Differences: The oak wilt pathogen
does not cause cankers on the stems,
and no bleeding is associated with
this disease. Dark staining may be
evident under the bark of trees with
oak wilt, but there are no conspicuous
zone lines. Oak wilt typically causes
red oak leaves to turn brown around
the edges while the veins remain green.
Leaves are rapidly shed as the tree dies.
Conversely, in live oak with the sudden
oak death pathogen, the veins first turn
yellow and eventually turn brown. Leaves
are often retained on the tree after it dies.

Oak Decline

Oak decline is a slow-acting disease
complex that can kill physiologically
mature trees in the upper canopy.
Decline results from interactions of
multiple stresses, such as prolonged
drought and spring defoliation by late
frost or insects, opportunistic root
disease fungi such as Armillaria mellea, and inner-bark-boring insects
such as the twolined chestnut borer
and red oak borer. Progressive dieback
of the crown is the main symptom of
oak decline and is an expression of an
impaired root system. This disease
can kill susceptible oaks within 3-5
years of the onset of crown symptoms.
Oak decline occurs throughout the
range of eastern hardwood forests,
but is particularly common in the
Southern Appalachian Mountains in
North Carolina, Tennessee, and
Virginia, as well as the Ozark
Mountains in Arkansas and Missouri.

Similarities: Oak decline can cause
death of many oaks on a landscape
scale. Moist, dark stains may be
present on the trunk of trees
affected by oak decline. Differences:
Oak decline shows evidence that
dieback has occurred over several
years from the top down and outside
inward. Newly killed branches with
twigs attached are usually found in
the same crown as those in a more
advanced state of deterioration killed
years before. Dieback associated
with sudden oak death occurs over
a growing season or two. The inner
bark beneath the dark stain
associated with stem-boring-insect
attacks has a discrete margin with
no zone lines or evidence of canker
development beyond the attack site.

Red Oak Borer

Red oak borer (Enaphalodes rufulus
(Haldeman)) attacks oaks of both
red and white groups throughout
the eastern United States, but
prefers members of the red oak group;
however, it does not kill trees.
Outbreaks are associated with
stressed trees that eventually die
from oak decline. The complete life
cycle takes 2 years. Adults are 1-1.5
inches long with antennae one to two
times as long as the body. Larvae
are the damaging life stage. Adult
females lay eggs in mid-summer in
refuges in the crevices of the bark.
Newly hatched larvae bore into the
phloem, where they mine an irregular
burrow 0.5-1 inch in diameter before
fall. In spring and summer of the
second year, dark, moist stains and
fine, granular frass may be seen on
the trunk. Exposure of the inner bark
reveals the frass-packed burrow and
the larva, if it has not bored more
deeply into the wood to complete
development. Mature larvae are stout,
round-headed grubs about 2 inches
long before they pupate deep in the
wood.

Similarities: Moist, dark stains and
fi ne frass may be present at sites
of red oak borer attack. Differences:
With red oak borer the inner bark
beneath the dark stain contains a
frass-packed burrow and has a
discrete margin with no zone lines
or evidence of canker development beyond it.

Ravens Surprise Scientists By Showing They Can Plan

As recently as 10 years ago, humans were thought to be the only species with the ability to plan.

Recent studies on great apes showed the ability is not uniquely human. Now, scientists in Sweden have come to the surprising conclusion that ravens can also deliberately prepare for future events.

"It is conservative to conclude that ravens perform similarly to great apes and young children," the researchers write. However, monkeys have failed similar experiments.

We've known that ravens, and other members of the corvid family, are smart. Previously, they were shown to think ahead by caching food to eat later.

But some scientists argued that food caching was not proof of an ability to plan because the birds could simply be biologically wired to do so, cognitive zoologist Can Kabadayi from Lund University tells The Two-Way.

So, Kabadayi and co-author Mathias Osvath set up a series of experiments to see if five ravens could flexibly plan during tasks that they don't do in the wild: using tools and bartering. These are similar to studies done on great apes. Their findings were published Thursday in the journal Science.

The researchers trained the birds how to use a simple tool, a rock, that could be used to open a box containing a treat (a piece of dog food) if the birds dropped it through a small tube.

One version of the experiment had a delay of 15 minutes between selecting an object and being presented with the reward box, and the ravens succeeded 86 percent of the time. The second extended that period to 17 hours, and the success rate was even higher, at 88 percent.They then tested whether the birds could pick the right tool from a series of "distracter" objects — such as a wheel, a ball, a metal pipe and a toy car — then save it and use it later to open the box.

The birds were also trained to use a specific token to barter with a human for a food reward. Then, a different experimenter offered them a tray with the token on it along with other distracter objects. "When the ravens knew that trading would only happen on the next day, they chose and stored these tokens as soon as they were offered to them," scientists Markus Boeckle and Nicola S. Clayton wrote in a separate Science paper on the Lund University research.

The researchers found that the birds would tend to opt out of immediate food rewards because of the promise of larger, tastier treats later.

They were more likely to be willing to endure delayed gratification when they had to wait only a few seconds, rather than minutes for the larger treat, which is also a key component of human decision-making. "We basically found that the further ahead in the future a reward for ravens, the less value it gets," says Kabadayi.

It's safe to say that ravens and mammals have not inherited planning skills through a common ancestor, says Kabadayi. They last shared an ancestor about 320 million years ago.

To plan, "you need a lot of different skill sets to work together and that's interesting, because how can that be similar between corvids and great apes given they are so different to each other evolutionarily?" says Kabadayi.

The skills likely evolved independently, through convergent evolution, he says.

Why would ravens develop the ability to plan? Kabadayi says there are many different theories.

He says this kind of complex cognition may have developed in reaction to ravens' complex social hierarchy. For example, they would need to remember previous interactions with other birds, which could contribute to memory and planning skills. However, he says there are many other hierarchical species that don't have planning abilities.

Factors like environmental pressures or the fact that they are scavengers competing with each other could also contribute, he says. The sheer density of neurons in a bird's brain, even though it is small compared to apes, might also play a role.

Kabadayi says that scientists would need to test a large number of species for their abilities to plan, and see how this correlates with the possible explanations.

Parrots would be interesting to test next, he says, because they have a "huge number of neurons in their brains" and have been shown to have good memories.

Bobcat goes fishing, casually catches massive salmon

This bobcat makes hunting for salmon look easy, and frankly puts human fishing to shame. Just reach in, grab a snack almost as big as yourself for breakfast, and even manage to stay mostly dry in the process.

"I went looking for spawning salmon and found a fishing bobcat," Taylor wrote on the park's Facebook page. "You never know what you might come across even on a quiet snowy morning."

A bobcat walks along the Calero Creek Trail just outside of San Jose, California, United States. (Don DeBold/Wikimedia Commons)

Though getting to watch a bobcat fish or hunt might be unusual – they're primarily solitary and nocturnal creatures, meaning they generally hunt at night and away from prying eyes – fishing for a meal is hardly unusual for a bobcat (Lynx rufus).

These far-ranging, opportunistic hunters are found throughout North America, as well as Canada and as far south as central Mexico – and their unfussy diets can sometimes land them odd meals. The felines tend towards smaller prey like fish, rabbits, rodents and birds, as well as other small animals local to their habitat. However, they'll occasionally try their luck with larger prey like deer or pigs.

In 2015, a bobcat was photographed dragging a shark out of the surf on a beach in Florida. The incident was unusual enough that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission examined the photo to verify it – and according to spokesperson Liz Barraco, it checked out.

"We have no reason to believe [the photograph is] fake," Barraco told National Geographic, noting that bobcats were strong occasional fishers. "But this is the first time we've seen them fishing in saltwater."

The animal apparently realised the shark was more than it had bargained for and abandoned its catch on the beach, but the capture itself was still a success. With the shark incident as context, it's perhaps less surprising that Washington's wild cat managed to nab a salmon so easily. One thing's for certain: with skills like that, the bobcat won't be going hungry anytime soon.

House Cat Origin Traced to Middle Eastern Wildcat Ancestor

Cat fanciers have long known that their feline friends have wild origins.

Now scientists have identified thehouse cat's maternal ancestors and traced them back to the Fertile Crescent.

The Near Eastern wildcat still roams the deserts of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries. (See map.) Between 70,000 and 100,000 years ago the animal gave rise to the genetic lineage that eventually produced all domesticated cats.

"It's plausible that the ancient [domestic cat] lineages were present in the wildcat populations back as far as 70,000 or 100,000 years ago," said study co-author Stephen O'Brien of the Nationa Cancer Institute in Frederick, Maryland.

The wildcats may have been captured around 10,000 or 12,000 years ago when humans were settling down to farming, he added.

"One of nearly 40 wild cat species existing at that time, the little wildcat that lived in the Middle East had a genetic variance that allowed it to sort of try an experiment—let's walk in and see if we can get along with those people," O'Brien said.

One Hell of an Experiment

A research team led by geneticist Carlos Driscoll of the National Cancer Institute and scientists at the University of Oxford in England found five matriarchal lineages to which modern domestic cats belong.

"This tells us that domestic cats were sort of widely recruited, probably over time and space," Driscoll said.

But people probably weren't going out and catching—or herding—cats.

"The cats just sort of domesticated themselves. People today know that you can't keep a cat inside [without barriers], and 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent you couldn't just shut the window."

Farmers were likely the first to domesticate wildcats. The animals may have been helpful in hunting mice and other pests that plagued farm fields in the early human settlements, which had just sprang from the first agricultural development.

Agriculture led to cities and towns, as well as a new ecological environment that cats were able to exploit.

There are some 600 million house cats around the world, study co-author O'Brien added.

Cats on the Move"Domestication was one hell of a successful natural experiment."

"It's sort of analogous to the 'out of Africa' theory that people talk about for humans," Driscoll said. "In the same way, domestic cats from Europe are really the same as domestic cats from Israel or China or wherever."

The earliest archaeological evidence for domestic cats has been found in Cyprus and dates back approximately 9,500 years.

Cat studies of all types are hindered by the many physical and behavioral similarities between domestic cats and their wild relatives. In fact, it is often difficult or impossible for even the trained eye to tell them apart, and interbreeding has created many hybrids of the two.

Genetic Clues

Driscoll's study began because genetics may be one of the only ways to determine which cats are truly wild. His group managed to successfully herd about a thousandwild and domestic cats and sample their DNA to produce the genetic study, which will appear in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

In search of cats' wild ancestor, the team studied modern wildcat subspecies including the Near Eastern wildcat, the European wildcat, the Central Asian wildcat, the southern African wildcat, and the Chinese desert cat.

The sampling of feline genes revealed that the Near Eastern wildcat and domestic cats fell into the same genetic clade, a group of species with the same ancestor. This meant the ancient ancestors of the wildcats were likely the first cats to be domesticated.

The genetic diversity of living cats revealed that they must have existed for some 70,000 to 100,000 years to produce that degree of diversity

Two Massachusetts Eastern Coyotes at their den site

Eastern Wolf in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada

Aldo Leopold--3 quotes from his SAN COUNTY ALMANAC

"We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect."

Aldo Leopold

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

Aldo Leopold

''To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering."

Wildlife Rendezvous

Like so many conscientious hunters and anglers come to realize, good habitat with our full suite of predators and prey make for healthy and productive living............Teddy Roosevelt depicted at a "WILDLIFE RENDEZVOUS"

Recent Posts

Blog Disclaimer

This is a personal weblog. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer. In addition, my thoughts and opinions change from time to time…I consider this a necessary consequence of having an open mind. This blog is intended to provide a semi-permanent point in time snapshot and manifestation of my various thoughts and opinions, and as such any thoughts and opinions expressed within out-of-date posts may not be the same, nor even similar, to those I may hold today. All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. Rick Meril and WWW.COYOTES-WOLVES-COUGARS.COM make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis.